Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Why is Larkin in HOF and Trammell Isn't?

I’ve talked before about how I’m a “Small Hall” guy. I think only the best of the best should be in Cooperstown. If it were up to me, the place would be made up of Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, maybe three other guys, and a janitor to keep the place tidy.

But I’m not talking about MY idea of the Hall of Fame today. I’m talking about the actual one. And the fact that Barry Larkin made it in with 86.4% of the vote and Alan Trammell only got 36.8% is ridiculous and makes no sense. If you’re going to let a very good, but not great, player like Larkin in, then Trammell should be enshrined right next to him. They were practically the same player, for crissakes.

So the question is, why is Larkin such a favorite of the voters, while Trammell might as well be Joe Blow? Well, let’s try and figure that out.

Regular Season Stats

Larkin has better offensive numbers than Tram in almost every category. Quite simply, Larkin was the better offensive player. But not by THAT much. Trammell, however, had better defensive numbers. For the record, let’s run through a bunch of lifetime stats for comparison.

So offensively, Trammell only tops Larkin in hits and RBI. Tram played 20 seasons and had 8288 at bats. Larkin played 19 and had 7937 trips to the dish. So they’re pretty even there and even in every statistical category with the exception of Larkin’s sizable OPS and SB advantages. But I really don’t see many crusty old white guys (aka Hall voters) making OPS the deciding factor in who they do or don’t vote for. Thus, we need to forget these regular season numbers when trying to figure out why Barry’s in and Tram is out.

Postseason Success

Both men won a World Series title. So that can’t be it. How did they perform in when it really mattered?

Yikes. Tram’s got him beat there. Plus he was the MVP of the ’84 World Series. Larkin, in the postseason, was the MVP of jack and shit. So the playoffs are out in why Larkin gets the nod, it seems. I guess deciding the greats of the game on postseason success only counts in football and Derek Jeter.

Appearance

America likes their sporting heroes to be handsome. From the days of Teddy Baseball and Joe D up to now with Tom Brady and Lord Jeter, the pretty boy players tend to get more coverage on TV and in the media.

Larkin is a good looking guy. He meets the criteria for what a baseball star is SUPPOSED to look like. Trammell, however, has a pockmarked complexion that more resembles the ass of the average Brandon Inge fan than that of a sports hero. Alan looks like a white version of the singer, Seal. Thus, I began to think that Barry’s appearance might have given him an edge with voters. (Notthatthere’sanythingwrongwiththat???)

Then I saw this picture on Deadspin of Larkin.

Of all the stupid fashion mistakes that Americans have made over the years, the one-snap overalls look of the early 90’s is by far the dumbest and worst. Thus, Barry Larkin is disqualified from any competition when it comes to looks. Asshat.

Also, since both players spent their entire careers in mid-market cities in the Midwest, their looks were probably irrelevant. They were ignored in the national media for not playing in New York, LA, or Boston. Perhaps they should have done cartwheels and backflips like Ozzie Smith did to get noticed.

Health

I’ve argued that Trammell’s numbers have been hurt by the fact that he was injured so much during his career. Was Larkin a healthier guy, thus putting up better numbers? Not really. Tram played more than 120 games in 12 of his 20 seasons. Larkin only did it in 10 of 19. This is just another factor that I see in the men that make them equals, not separate. I just wanted to establish that before moving on.

Awards

I have a feeling we are going to get our answer here and it’s going to piss off anyone that roots for men wearing the Old English D.

Well, there you have it, I think. Larkin’s got a lot of fancy Cub Scout badges there compared to Trammell. I think this is where the voters have looked in deciding Larkin is an immortal and Trammell is an also-ran.

By the way, the voters are all fucking jackoffs.

Trammell played the majority his career in the same league with Cal Ripken, Tony Fernandez, and Robin Yount as his contemporaries. Larkin had light-hitting, overrated showoff Ozzie Smith and a bunch of scrubs like Jeff Blauser in his league. Larkin was going to win Silver Sluggers and All Star Appearances by default. Trammell was up against much higher competition. I’d love to see how many Sluggers and ASG appearances Tram would have wound up with if he played for, say, the Cubs.

And the MVP? Fuck and you, voters. Let’s look at Larkin’s MVP season up against Trammell’s 1987 when he got jobbed out of the award in favor of George Bell.

So shove that MVP award up your ass if that’s what you used to decide on your vote. (As an aside, in 1995, Colorado's Dante Bichette hit .340 with 40 homers and 128 RBI, somehow losing to Larkin. Are you serious, bro?)

Overall, once again, in my pig-headed view of what the Hall of Fame should be, neither man makes the cut. They were both very good players that had their numbers hurt by injuries and perhaps the eras they played the majority of their careers in. I want my Hall of Famers to be standing ovations, not polite golf claps.

But in what constitutes the actual Hall of Fame? The fact that Larkin makes it by such a big number and Trammell isn’t even close?

That’s a load of shit. I hate baseball writers more than childhood cancer sometimes.

It's not about stats. If it was, Trammell would be in the Hall by now. It's about the voters. Your "old white men are stupid" tag pretty much says it all. Why don't they vote for Trammell??? Because the old, white, non-athlete, testosterone worshipping nerds, think that even THEY are more cool than Trammell. The poor guy can't catch a break. His qualifications are evident as is his lifetime dedication to the game. Bastards.

As long as Alan Trammell is not in the HOF, I will never, ever visit Cooperstown. I have no reason. He's been fucked repeatedly throughout his career.

And your remark about his appearance:I got to meet him once as a bat boy during Spring Training in Baseball City (Haines City) for the Tigers. I'm sure I've bored everyone with my stories about chatting up up with Sparky and Tracewski, but the signature moment in my baseball life was meeting Trammell and getting his autograph. And man, I must say, he is one ugly muthafukkah.

Bichette was a 0.3 WAR player in 1995 because of the Coors effect and atrocious defense, if anything it was Maddux that got screwed (19-2, 1.63 ERA!). I agree that it's ridiculous that All-Star appearances and awards, which also feature horrendous voting, are then used as reasoning for terrible Hall of Fame voting.

Because of the defensive WAR gap, I'd almost argue that Trammell is a better all around player than Larkin. Also, I agree that context needs to be taken into consideration more often when sportswriters vote a player to the hall partially based on MVP and Silver Slugger awards.

Do Not Take This Blog Seriously.

The only thing I enjoy more than Detroit Tigers baseball is making fun of it and those that write about it. Most things you read here are meant in a humorous way. So do everyone a favor and lighten up. It's a joke. Oftentimes a bad one...

DesigNate Robertson was named after ex-Tiger pitcher, Nate Robertson and my hatred of his performances on the mound. He will be missed.

To those with an open mind and a sense of humor, I welcome you. Lets have some fun.